PDA

View Full Version : Other Sports NCAA Expands Men's Basketball Field...


Discuss Thrower
04-22-2010, 10:34 AM
... to 68 teams, according to ESPN. Looks like every #1 takes on a play in game winner.

HemiEd
04-22-2010, 10:35 AM
I like that better than the 96, or whatever that huge number was, they were considering.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:37 AM
I like it. Raise it a few teams every few years to not piss off the "STOP MESSING WITH IT!!!111" retards.

CHENZ A!
04-22-2010, 10:37 AM
Thank god they didn't fuck it up by going to 96. I'm perfectly fine with this.
Posted via Mobile Device

Pants
04-22-2010, 10:38 AM
I like it. Raise it a few teams every few years to not piss off the "STOP MESSING WITH IT!!!111" retards.

Yes, people who didn't like the 1000 team idea are retards. Classic Saul.

You're a fucking gem, man. ROFL

CHENZ A!
04-22-2010, 10:39 AM
I like it. Raise it a few teams every few years to not piss off the "STOP MESSING WITH IT!!!111" retards.

You wanted 96 teams? That's a fantastic idea, let's just let everyone in.
Posted via Mobile Device

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:40 AM
Yes, people who didn't like the 1000 team idea are retards. Classic Saul.

You're a fucking gem, man. ROFL
No, people who don't like 96 teams just for the fact that it is a change, are retards.

Very few if any valid points have been raised to argue the expansion of the NCAA Mens Basketball tournament.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:42 AM
You wanted 96 teams? That's a fantastic idea, let's just let everyone in.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yeah, letting 28% of the Division 1 teams in to the post-season is "letting everyone in."

:rolleyes:

Baconeater
04-22-2010, 10:43 AM
No, people who don't like 96 teams just for the fact that it is a change, are retards.

Very few if any valid points have been raised to argue the expansion of the NCAA Mens Basketball tournament.
Are you serious? What about the fact that the only reason most people watch is because of the brackets they fill out? How many of those same people are going to fill out a 96 team bracket?

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:45 AM
Are you serious? What about the fact that the only reason most people watch is because of the brackets they fill out? How many of those people are going to fill out a 96 team bracket?

Yeah, I can see the scenario now. Deb from accounting slams her new 96 team bracket on to the table in disgust. "I can fill out 65 teams, but 96 is just way too many!"

That being said, bracket pools are probably the least valid concern.

cdirty
04-22-2010, 10:46 AM
god, the thread title scared me.

this is a good expansion.

notorious
04-22-2010, 10:47 AM
Thank God that is it.


I thought they might release the 96 news today knowing that the fall-out wouldn't be as bad with the draft being the dominate news piece.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:47 AM
god, the thread title scared me.

this is a good expansion.

See, it is working!

:clap:

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:47 AM
Thank God that is it.


I thought they might release the 96 news today knowing that the fall-out wouldn't be as bad with the draft being the dominate news piece.

More proof.

FWIW, there WILL be a 96 team field. Might be as soon as next year.

BigRedChief
04-22-2010, 10:47 AM
That being said, bracket pools are probably the least valid concern.Maybe but it is a factor in its growth and popularity just like the growth of fantasy football helped propel the NFL to new heights.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:48 AM
OH, and I can't wait to hear the new NCAA on TBS jingle.

notorious
04-22-2010, 10:49 AM
More proof.

FWIW, there WILL be a 96 team field. Might be as soon as next year.

No Proof, I just saw the Thread Topic and figured it would be the 96 announcement.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:49 AM
No Proof, I just saw the Thread Topic and figured it would be the 96 announcement.

No, it is proof. Sorry bro.

Baconeater
04-22-2010, 10:51 AM
Yeah, I can see the scenario now. Deb from accounting slams her new 96 team bracket on to the table in disgust. "I can fill out 65 teams, but 96 is just way too many!"

That being said, bracket pools are probably the least valid concern.
How the hell do you even print up a bracket for a 96 team field?

And I flat out disagree with that last statement, unless ratings aren't a valid concern.

notorious
04-22-2010, 10:52 AM
No, it is proof. Sorry bro.


No prob.LMAO


With all of the draft discussion I am in the "assume the worst" mode.

Swanman
04-22-2010, 10:52 AM
Are you serious? What about the fact that the only reason most people watch is because of the brackets they fill out? How many of those same people are going to fill out a 96 team bracket?

ALL OF THEM

ArrowheadHawk
04-22-2010, 10:53 AM
So can we put all the mid majors in the play in games so they have a lower chance to play Kansas. :)

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:53 AM
How the hell do you even print up a bracket for a 96 team field?

And I flat out disagree with that last statement, unless ratings aren't a valid concern.

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629

Ratings will be fine. They may have the same amount of viewers for the 2nd round as they did the previous 1st rounds, but the new 1st rounds will have an entire new base of viewers.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:54 AM
So can we put all the mid majors in the play in games so they have a lower chance to play Kansas. :)

Heh. Good call. :)

FWIW, I imagine you will see more BCS bubble teams than mid-major teams in the tournaments. Teams like Virginia Tech, Illinois, UConn this year...

eazyb81
04-22-2010, 10:57 AM
No, people who don't like 96 teams just for the fact that it is a change, are retards.

Very few if any valid points have been raised to argue the expansion of the NCAA Mens Basketball tournament.

I believe the clear argument against expansion is that it will diminish the value of the regular season. The regular season games just won't matter too much when 10/12 Big 12 teams make the tourney.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 10:58 AM
I don't have the numbers readily available, but we have been at 64/65 teams since 1985.

I imagine there were less than 300 Division 1 teams in 1985. Now there are 347.

KChiefs1
04-22-2010, 10:58 AM
I like it.

It's letting the Lehigh's, Jackson St's, Winthrop's & Belmont's play each other instead of facing Duke, Syracuse, Kentucky, etc...in the first game.

It will let in team who were so close to making it get in...like Illinois, Virginia Tech & Mississippi State.

It really won't change the tournament at all.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 11:00 AM
I believe the clear argument against expansion is that it will diminish the value of the regular season. The regular season games just won't matter too much when 10/12 Big 12 teams make the tourney.

Realistically, half of the teams in the tournament have no chance of winning it anyways. This would just add quite a few more teams that would still have no chance of winning it.

If the NCAA was concerned about the value of the regular season, or even the post season, the tournament would be 32 teams.

Demonpenz
04-22-2010, 11:00 AM
people will still fill out brakets for 96 teams or whatever LMAO, it would just take more time out of their workday.

Baconeater
04-22-2010, 11:01 AM
http://espn.go.com/ncaa/bracket?id=5071629

Ratings will be fine. They may have the same amount of viewers for the 2nd round as they did the previous 1st rounds, but the new 1st rounds will have an entire new base of viewers.
Bleh, that's only the first two rounds posted there, I'd like to see one that fits nicely on a single sheet of paper like it does now. I just have to think a lot of people are going to see a two page bracket and say fuck this shit.

Brainiac
04-22-2010, 11:02 AM
No, people who don't like 96 teams just for the fact that it is a change, are retards.

Very few if any valid points have been raised to argue the expansion of the NCAA Mens Basketball tournament.
Dude,

There's nothing wrong with saying "it's perfect right now, don't f*ck it up".

The ONLY argument for expanding the field was to get a big TV contract. CBS and TNT solved that by coughing up $10.8 Billion.

Why do you have such a hardon for wanting 96 teams?

tk13
04-22-2010, 11:10 AM
The real argument is that there are barely 64 teams worthy to begin with. That's a perfectly valid reason. It is just going make the tourney more bloated. The tourney is the perfect size to allow the cream of the mid majors plus major conference teams that earn it... not 17-13 teams that finish sub .500 in conference.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sure-Oz
04-22-2010, 11:27 AM
68 is good, im glad it didnt go too high

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 11:35 AM
68 is good, im glad it didnt go too high

STRIKES AGAIN!

sedated
04-22-2010, 11:35 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure I like 68 more than 96. Now we have 4 games that no one gives a shit about rather than 1. I saw the 96 team bracket, and it looked pretty interesting.

For the people who say that the regular season would mean nothing, it pretty much doesn't now for the teams that matter ("Oh Nozzzz, we might fall to a 3 seed!!!"), and the bye situation would make things a lot more interesting coming down the stretch.


The thing that stands out to me is the fact that all the games will be divided onto 4 networks rather than the DirecTV package. I wonder if they will be as well-coordinated on different networks as they were on CBS.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 11:35 AM
@SPORTSbyBROOKS If the field is only going to 68 teams, why does CBS need Turner in the deal? Wake up ppl. #hello96

Mr. Plow
04-22-2010, 11:41 AM
YAAAAAYY!!11!!

Fucking UNC would have made a 96 team tourney. ROFL

HemiEd
04-22-2010, 11:42 AM
68 is fine, but not 96. Like tk13 said, it is already bloated with non-deserving teams.

They should skip the conference tournaments if they do go to 96, as they will no longer have any relevance.

BigChiefFan
04-22-2010, 11:42 AM
Money, money, money.

Hey, another watered down product for the masses.

sedated
04-22-2010, 11:43 AM
@SPORTSbyBROOKS If the field is only going to 68 teams, why does CBS need Turner in the deal? Wake up ppl. #hello96

April 29

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 11:47 AM
The NFL allows 38% of the teams in to the playoffs.

Under a 96 team bracket, the NCAA Mens Division 1 tournament would include 28% of the teams in to the playoffs.

Just food for thought...

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 11:53 AM
The real argument is that there are barely 64 teams worthy to begin with. That's a perfectly valid reason. It is just going make the tourney more bloated. The tourney is the perfect size to allow the cream of the mid majors plus major conference teams that earn it... not 17-13 teams that finish sub .500 in conference.
Posted via Mobile Device

Yep. No one watches the play in game now they are not going to watch these new play in games and I doubt people would watch round 1-2 if it got expanded to 96 teams. No one really cares or is interested in watching to shitty teams play each other.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 12:03 PM
Yep. No one watches the play in game now they are not going to watch these new play in games and I doubt people would watch round 1-2 if it got expanded to 96 teams. No one really cares or is interested in watching to shitty teams play each other.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/03/26/1336861/tar-heels-nearing-nit-ratings.html

Let it be known that 1.4 million people = no one.

Mr. Plow
04-22-2010, 12:12 PM
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/03/26/1336861/tar-heels-nearing-nit-ratings.html

Let it be known that 1.4 million people = no one.

So you are comparing UNC NIT to....to....whoever the fuck played in the play in game this year?

sedated
04-22-2010, 12:14 PM
Yep. No one watches the play in game now they are not going to watch these new play in games and I doubt people would watch round 1-2 if it got expanded to 96 teams. No one really cares or is interested in watching to shitty teams play each other.

I bet you would've watched the play-in game last year if the winner was going to play your favorite team the next round.

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 12:19 PM
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/03/26/1336861/tar-heels-nearing-nit-ratings.html

Let it be known that 1.4 million people = no one.

That is what a 1 rating or less? Compare that to 48 million that watched some or all of the championship game.

You realize WWE Monday Night Raw gets more viewers than that? LMAO

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 12:26 PM
Awesome TV support that 1.4 million is

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="467"><tbody><tr height="16"><td>1 WWE
</td> <td>USA</td> <td>Mon</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right"> 4,994</td> </tr> <tr><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td><td style="vertical-align: top;">
</td></tr><tr height="16"> <td height="16">2</td> <td>DEADLIEST CATCH</td> <td>DISC</td> <td>Tue</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4,587</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">3</td> <td>SPONGEBOB</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4,477</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">4</td> <td>WWE ENTERTAINMENT</td> <td>USA</td> <td>Mon</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4,399</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">5</td> <td>NCIS</td> <td>USA</td> <td>Wed</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4,382</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">6</td> <td>ICARLY</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4,274</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">7</td> <td>PAWN STARS</td> <td>HIST</td> <td>Mon</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4,199</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">8</td> <td>GOOD LUCK CHARLIE</td> <td>DSNY</td> <td>Sun</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4,108</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">9</td> <td>SPONGEBOB</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">4,083</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">10</td> <td>SPURS/MAVERICKS</td> <td>TNT</td> <td>Sun</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,925</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">11</td> <td>SPONGEBOB</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,910</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">12</td> <td>PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,889</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">13</td> <td>NCIS</td> <td>USA</td> <td>Mon</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,888</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">14</td> <td>LIFE</td> <td>DISC</td> <td>Sun</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,841</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">15</td> <td>HEAT/CELTICS</td> <td>ESPN</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,821</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">16</td> <td>SPONGEBOB</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sun</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,769</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">17</td> <td>SPONGEBOB</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,755</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">18</td> <td>NCIS</td> <td>USA</td> <td>Wed</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,716</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">19</td> <td>WIZARDS OF WAVERLY PLACE</td> <td>DSNY</td> <td>Fri</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,585</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">20</td> <td>NCIS</td> <td>USA</td> <td>Mon</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,536</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">21</td> <td>FAMILY GUY</td> <td>ADSM</td> <td>Sun</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,500</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">22</td> <td>ICARLY</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,500</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">23</td> <td>PAWN STARS</td> <td>HIST</td> <td>Mon</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,490</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">24</td> <td>LIFE</td> <td>DISC</td> <td>Sun</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,489</td> </tr> <tr height="16"> <td height="16">25</td> <td>ICARLY</td> <td>NICK</td> <td>Sat</td> <td>
</td> <td align="right">3,439</td></tr></tbody></table>

Mr. Plow
04-22-2010, 12:35 PM
Spongebob rocks.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 12:43 PM
That is what a 1 rating or less? Compare that to 48 million that watched some or all of the championship game.

You realize WWE Monday Night Raw gets more viewers than that? LMAO

That is still pretty good for an NIT game, which is in fact not an NCAA tournament game, which included 2 below average teams in good markets.

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 01:03 PM
That is still pretty good for an NIT game, which is in fact not an NCAA tournament game, which included 2 below average teams in good markets.

Here is the rating for the play-in game. I guess we will agree to disagree I just don't see the interest in 2 shitty teams playing each other

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="580"><tbody><tr><td width="285">NCAA Basketball Tournament: Play-In: Arkansas Pine Bluff-Winthrop</td> <td width="4"> 3/16
</td> <td width="39"> ESPN
</td> <td width="60"> 7:30-9:43pm
</td> <td width="28"> 0.8
</td> <td width="53"> 0.9
</td> <td width="79"> 1,053
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:04 PM
Here is the rating for the play-in game. I guess we will agree to disagree I just don't see the interest in 2 shitty teams play each other

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="580"><tbody><tr><td width="285">NCAA Basketball Tournament: Play-In: Arkansas Pine Bluff-Winthrop</td> <td width="4"> 3/16
</td> <td width="39"> ESPN
</td> <td width="60"> 7:30-9:43pm
</td> <td width="28"> 0.8
</td> <td width="53"> 0.9
</td> <td width="79"> 1,053
</td></tr></tbody></table>

That's APB vs Winthrop. Imagine if the play in game was Illinois vs UNC?

Mr. Plow
04-22-2010, 01:09 PM
That's APB vs Winthrop. Imagine if the play in game was Illinois vs UNC?


So, what you are saying is that teams with a larger fan base will have more people watch their games? Amazing I tell you.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:11 PM
So, what you are saying is that teams with a larger fan base will have more people watch their games? Amazing I tell you.

Novel concept, right? Replace the current play in games with some play in games that will be actually interesting to watch.

Mr. Plow
04-22-2010, 01:12 PM
Novel concept, right? Replace the current play in games with some play in games that will be actually interesting to watch.

You think a UNC vs Illinois would have been interesting to watch?

ChiefaRoo
04-22-2010, 01:14 PM
Great, looking forward to more KU versus Mid-Major upsets. :)

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:14 PM
You think a UNC vs Illinois would have been interesting to watch?

As a college basketball fan, Yes.

ArrowheadHawk
04-22-2010, 01:14 PM
Great, looking forward to more KU versus Mid-Major upsets. :):cuss:

HemiEd
04-22-2010, 01:16 PM
Here is the rating for the play-in game. I guess we will agree to disagree I just don't see the interest in 2 shitty teams playing each other

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="580"><tbody><tr><td width="285">NCAA Basketball Tournament: Play-In: Arkansas Pine Bluff-Winthrop</td> <td width="4"> 3/16
</td> <td width="39"> ESPN
</td> <td width="60"> 7:30-9:43pm
</td> <td width="28"> 0.8
</td> <td width="53"> 0.9
</td> <td width="79"> 1,053
</td></tr></tbody></table>

You would about have to be an Alumni, or related to a player to watch one of those games.

sedated
04-22-2010, 01:16 PM
Here is the rating for the play-in game. I guess we will agree to disagree I just don't see the interest in 2 shitty teams playing each other

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0" width="580"><tbody><tr><td width="285">NCAA Basketball Tournament: Play-In: Arkansas Pine Bluff-Winthrop</td> <td width="4"> 3/16
</td> <td width="39"> ESPN
</td> <td width="60"> 7:30-9:43pm
</td> <td width="28"> 0.8
</td> <td width="53"> 0.9
</td> <td width="79"> 1,053
</td></tr></tbody></table>


Those are 2 horrible "name" teams, and the only people who gave a shit were the fans of those 2 schools and the fans of the team awaiting them in the next round.

If it were 2 big-name schools, ratings would be higher. If the play-in game actually mattered, ratings would be higher, and in the 96-team bracket all play-in games matter.


Its funny that the same people who say the play-in game as it is now is a joke are the ones who loudly support adding only 3 more play-in games.

ChiefaRoo
04-22-2010, 01:17 PM
:cuss:

you do realize that if KU ever loses to WSU 60% of Jayhawk nation will need therapy. It would be the most delicious thing evah...

sedated
04-22-2010, 01:18 PM
Here's the bracket as it would have been if we had 96-teams last year.

Aside from KU fans shitting themselves at the thought of playing UNC in the 2nd round, it looks pretty fun.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13165827

Mr. Plow
04-22-2010, 01:19 PM
As a college basketball fan, Yes.


I can't speak for Illinois, but I watched UNC play this year several times. It was anything but interesting.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:20 PM
Here's the bracket as it would have been if we had 96-teams last year.

Aside from KU fans shitting themselves at the thought of playing UNC in the 2nd round, it looks pretty fun.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/13165827

Oh man, the "Opening Round" vs "Round 1" distinction tard talking point would be too much to handle.

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:21 PM
I can't speak for Illinois, but I watched UNC play this year several times. It was anything but interesting.
That's because you are an idiot.

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 01:21 PM
That's APB vs Winthrop. Imagine if the play in game was Illinois vs UNC?

But weren't those 2 teams the 63rd and 64th best teams?

HemiEd
04-22-2010, 01:21 PM
you do realize that if KU ever loses to WSU 60% of Jayhawk nation will need therapy. It would be the most delicious thing evah...
It happened, and it was wonderful. 1981, the battle of New Orleans, sweet 16, 66-65

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:22 PM
But weren't those 2 teams the 63rd and 64th best teams?

Uh, no.

They were automatic entries from winning their conference tournament.

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 01:23 PM
Those are 2 horrible "name" teams, and the only people who gave a shit were the fans of those 2 schools and the fans of the team awaiting them in the next round.

If it were 2 big-name schools, ratings would be higher. If the play-in game actually mattered, ratings would be higher, and in the 96-team bracket all play-in games matter.


Its funny that the same people who say the play-in game as it is now is a joke are the ones who loudly support adding only 3 more play-in games.

If you expand it to 96 this will be the norm not the exception at least in the first 2 rounds.

I don't like the play in game now and I think they should just leave the tournament the way that it is. Why fix something that isn't broke?

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:25 PM
If you expand it to 96 this will be the norm not the exception at least in the first 2 rounds.

I don't like the play in game now and I think they should just leave the tournament the way that it is. Why fix something that isn't broke?

On what basis would you prove it's "not broke"? Was it broken before they went to 65 teams? How about 64? Do you assume that something is broke anytime anything is changed?

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 01:25 PM
Uh, no.

They were automatic entries from winning their conference tournament.

ok I didn't know that and from reason I have 62 teams stuck in my head instead of 64.

Edit: The NCAA considers them part of the tournament and they are 2 teams from the weakest conferences usually

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 01:29 PM
On what basis would you prove it's "not broke"? Was it broken before they went to 65 teams? How about 64? Do you assume that something is broke anytime anything is changed?

On what basis would you prove that it is broke?

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:30 PM
ok I didn't know that and from reason I have 62 teams stuck in my head instead of 64. So why were they given automatic entry and then have to play in? I guess I don't understand then.

You didn't know that? Why would you argue about this topic if you did not have that basic tidbit of information?

Saulbadguy
04-22-2010, 01:30 PM
On what basis would you prove that it is broke?
It's not broke. Just because something is changed doesn't mean it is broke.

dirk digler
04-22-2010, 01:39 PM
It's not broke. Just because something is changed doesn't mean it is broke.

Then they need to leave it alone but that is just my .02 cents.

Mr. Plow
04-22-2010, 01:40 PM
That's because you are an idiot.


I forgot, you're a KSU fan - it probably would be interesting to you.

Pants
04-22-2010, 03:31 PM
For the people who say that the regular season would mean nothing, it pretty much doesn't now for the teams that matter ("Oh Nozzzz, we might fall to a 3 seed!!!"), and the bye situation would make things a lot more interesting coming down the stretch.

WTF are you talking about? You don't think teams like UConn and UNC matter? They didn't make it last year and they are perennial powerhouses in CBB. Guess what? The regular season DID matter to them, they had to win more to get in. In a 96 team field, regular season is not going to matter for shit. It has nothing to do with being "more interesting" and everything to do with NCAA getting more money from the broadcasts.

And people need to throw the garbage "percentage of teams in the play-offs" argument out of the fucking window because comparing pro sports to college sports is like comparing apples to elephants. The NFL has parity. NBA and MLB have "best out of" series.

If anything, the tournament needs to go to 32 teams.

Valiant
04-22-2010, 04:01 PM
No, people who don't like 96 teams just for the fact that it is a change, are retards.

Very few if any valid points have been raised to argue the expansion of the NCAA Mens Basketball tournament.

Basically zero chance of them winning?? or .00001 chance??

Either get blown out in the new NCAA bracket or stand somewhat of chance in the NIT..

The only reason for it is revenue, but how much exactly are these play in games going to make?? That is the deal breaker, if they pay these schools jack equal to what the top seeds are getting when they play each other then it is good for the sport..

If they do not get equilivant money, then why do it for the embarassment?? At least they stood more of a chace winning their first game in the NIT then they would getting blown out by 40+ points..

But again it just depends on what money they are getting to make it worth it for those non-worthy schools(non-worthy meaning they suck at basketball that year)..

I am fine with adding the few more schools now, because I believe it will kill 96team talk after they get destroyed and people decide not to attend or watch..

Bearcat
04-22-2010, 05:15 PM
Yeah, letting 28% of the Division 1 teams in to the post-season is "letting everyone in."

:rolleyes:

13/16 BE teams, 9/12 B12 teams, all 12 ACC teams, 8/11 B11 teams, 8/12 SEC teams, 4 of 9 Mountain West teams..... that's 70% of the top 6 conference by RPI, and 100% of the ACC. I'm sure you're just here to watch people jump over themselves to argue with you, but that's why I don't think they should expand. If you're a big conference, why even have a conference tournament?

What problem is solved by a 96-team field? Better ratings for the round of 64? Do they actually want more upsets? Is that good for any round after the first weekend?